The United States’ constitution has stood the test of time since its adoption in late 18th century. During 17th century, Americans were under colonial rule that denied them rights and powers to govern themselves. Then, Americans fought for their independence gradually by demanding their recognition and inclusion into the colonial government that had oppressed for quite some time.
Colonialists flooded the US in early 17th century from various parts of the world, majorly Europe because they were escaping religious persecution and in search of expansive land for agriculture. Under oppression, Americans made several initiatives in a bid to emancipate themselves and these initiatives culminated into independence in 1776.
According to Garrett, in 1765, 13 colonies met to discuss the violation of fundamental rights and in 1774 and 1775, first and second continental congress respectively resolved to have independence (12). In 1776, the United States got its independence and adopted a new constitution in 1787. This constitution has become the legal basis for the present government. Despite the fact that the formulation of the United States’ constitution dates back to more than 230 years ago, it is still remarkably viable in the modern government.
The preamble of the United States’ constitution envisages a perfect union of diverse states based on common defence, liberty, justice and tranquillity. Even though the preamble dates back to more than two centuries ago, it formed the basis of federal form of government that still exists today.
American government has a federal model of government that other countries are trying to emulate for it is a perfect union of diverse states. Garrett argues that the United States’ constitution has stood the test of time because it established federal government as it exists currently (19).
The existence of the federal government reflects viability of the United States’ constitution in modern governance. Therefore, current union of states has its basis in the United States’ constitution, which envisaged perfect union and how federal government functions and relates with central government.
The United States’ constitution is still viable in modern governance because it has an elastic clause that makes it flexible and adaptive to modern changes, which are consistent with new forms of governance. According to Section 8 of Article I, Congress has powers to make necessary amendments that are essential and consistent with the United States’ constitution.
The United States’ constitution is a legal framework that anchors several amendments and provisions in view of evolving legal issues of governance in the modern world. Wedes argues that, the elastic clause is particularly relevant to modern governance because it does not only give power to Congress to conduct necessary and appropriate amendments, but also ensures that the constitution is in tandem with dynamic needs of governance (p.1).
For instance, Congress has made several amendments in modes of taxation, regulation of commerce and security issues with regard to terrorism. Thus, elastic clause has made the United States’ constitution remain viable and reliable in current governance.
Moreover, the amendment process of the United States’ constitution is decidedly stringent to protect it from undue mutilation and changes that would make it lose its viability over time. The United States’ constitution has the first ten amendments that form basis of human rights, which are inalienable.
From independence, the first ten amendments have remained and are truly viable as they are provisions that stipulate inherent and immutable rights of every citizen in America. For instance, the first amendment to the United States’ constitution provides and guarantees freedom of expression, religion, association and petition. The first amendment assured Americans that the federal government will protect and secure their rights for posterity.
In addition, Garlinger states that, the fourteenth amendment to the United States’ constitution forbids any state from making or enforcing any law that restrict the privileges or deprive life, liberty and property (p.32). Hence, in spite of numerous attempts to amend the constitution, the amendments to United States’ constitution are central to human rights and have become the cornerstone in advocacy of human rights, thus still viable in the present government.
Supreme Court of the United States also has powers to review the constitutionality of statutes, amendments and treaties that congress makes to guarantee their consistency with the constitution. According to Prakash and Yoo, Marbury v. Madison (1803), did set a precedent, which gave powers to Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of congressional statutes and amendments (890).
Currently, Supreme Court still has powers to review and determine the constitutionality of statutes and amendments of the Congress. Thus, Supreme Court has a considerable role in ensuring that the United States’ constitution remains viable and consistent across all ages except few amendments that enhance its application in modern governance.
Conclusion
Although the United States’ constitution is over 200 years old, it is still highly relevant in modern society. The constitution provides a legal framework, which anchors several provisions and amendments that occur over a period.
The legal framework of the United States’ constitution has relatively remained constant for over 200 years, and is still relevant and viable because it is flexible in adopting new judicial and governing reforms. It is quite evident that the United States’ constitution been stable for a long period because of federal form of government, elastic clause, stringent amendment process and judicial review, all of which attest its viability and relevance in the modern United States.
Works Cited
Garlinger, Paul. “United States Constitution: The Amendments.” New York University Law Review 2.4 (2009): 30-34.
Garrett, Sandy. United States History, Constitution and Government. New York: Harcourt Publisher, 2005.
Prakash, Saikrishna, and Yoo, John. “The Origins of Judicial Review.” Chicago Law Review, 2003: 887-933.
Wedes, Samuel. “A Living Constitution, the United States Constitution: Does It Stand The Test of Time?” Government, 2006: 1-33.
US constitution has gone through various changes as it seeks to grant freedom to citizens. It grants rights and freedoms namely, freedom of religion, freedom of press, and freedom of speech, among others. Founding fathers of sought freedom for all individuals in their declaration.
These were aimed at promoting happiness and decentralization of power. It is quite important to note that these rights vary slightly from one State to another. This paper will try to compare rights of citizens as provided in the federal government. It will also endeavor to compare it with that of State of Georgia (Chen, 1997, p. 1).
Rights of Citizens
Every nation protects the rights of its people. These rights serve to protect every citizen, including new citizens from interference, which may be caused by private organizations, and government, among others. Democracy is essential for peaceful governance of a people. This can only be achieved by giving freedom of rights to citizens. US citizens have various rights namely, freedom of religion, freedom of press, and freedom of speech.
They also have the right to assemble, and petition. The constitution also provides other rights such as rights of all Americans as well as that of blacks. Freedom of religion was instituted to help prevent a single religion from dominating citizens as it could lead to persecution and oppression. Freedom of speech, on the other hand, gives an individual the right to speak privately or publicly (Chen, 1997, p. 1).
Citizens are also allowed to gather and protest peacefully against political, economic, as well as social conditions. Moreover, they are allowed to demand reforms in such conditions. United States citizens have the right to seek redress by petitioning government through courts. There are amendments that have since been passed to add or change the constitutions. They include the right to trial by jury and the right to bear arms, among others. Others include rights of black Americans and those that apply to all Americans (Chen, 1997, p. 1).
Rights of Citizens in State of Georgia
The State of Georgia has a constitution that protects its citizens from oppression. These include right of persons to life, property and liberty. In addition, it provides right to equal protection, freedom of conscience, opinion and religion, as well as speech. Furthermore, it protects its citizens from libel.
Others include the right to bear and keep arms. The State also gives all residents citizenship, right to courts, warrants, and seizures, among others. From the information given above, it is very clear that State of Georgia provide similar rights to citizens as the federal government. This may differ slightly from those of other States (Cox, 2005, p. 1).
Conclusion
US constitution has gone through various changes as it seeks to grant freedom to citizens. It grants citizens freedom of religion, press, and speech, among others. These rights protect citizens from oppression. For instance, Georgia has a constitution that protects its citizens from oppression.
These include right of persons to life, property and liberty. It also provides rights to equal protection, freedom of conscience, opinion and religion, as well as speech and press, among others. Clearly, that State of Georgia provides similar rights to citizens as federal government. However, this differs slightly from other States (Cox, 2005, p. 1).
Reference List
Chen, D. (1997). Citizen Rights. Utah Education. Web.
Cox, C. (2005). CONSTITUTIONOF THE STATE OF GEORGIA. sos.georgia.gov. Web.
‘How Democratic Is the American Constitution’ is a book written by Robert A. Dahl that raises many provocative questions and doubts about the U.S. constitutional document. Dahl, the book’s author, is a former president of the Political Science Association of the United States and Yale’s University Sterling Professor Emeritus. To introduce the thesis of the book’s main subject matter, the author sarcastically poses the question ‘How democratic is the American Constitution?’ which also serve as the book’s title.
According to Dahl’s perceptions and opinions, as presented in the text, many American citizens have always held their country’s Constitutional document and the principle this has to embody into their lives, with much honor and esteem. However, majority of the American citizens have always been worried that their esteemed Constitutional draft fails short in addressing some of the crucial aspects affecting the general humanity such as women rights, racial integration, and economic equality (Robert 16).
In this text, Dahl explicitly explores the big tension existing between the people’s faith in the credibility of the laws governing their country and their stand on the principles of democracy presented by these laws. In this book, Dahl reminds the American society of the missing link in their constitution; a flaw that makes the sacred draft unqualified as a basis for the country’s democratic system.
The book presents the writer’s viewpoint about the Constitution as just a representation of the history that surrounded its creation and implementation. This actually makes him to believe that, most the current Constitutional does not address the present day issues affecting the humanity.
According to Dahl, the framers of this constitution had failed completely in some respects such as establishment of a strong democratic system of government. Some of the approaches used by the writer to achieve his purpose on the book include the power of transparency, outright critique of American political institutions, and use of reliable evidence and examples to support his claims. More importantly, the writer also applies a gentle but a persistent approach to express his critics on the subject matter.
Dahl has widely applied historical evidence throughout the text to reveal the imperfection of the American democracy, as stipulated by the constitution. There is also a wide application of contemporary aspects such as real-life events and other people’s observations by the writer, to provide substantial evidence as to why he thought the American Constitution was indeed undemocratic.
A good example of how evidence applies in the book is observed in various episodes where he compares the American Constitutional system with that of other countries of the same status. Dahl observes that, the most reasonable revisions on the constitution were done more than a century ago and no significant changes have been applied on the document since then.
I personally tend to agree with Dahl’s point of view on the American secret document, if I may call it so. We cannot just rise up and start condemning Dahl, simply for his attempts to highlight some of the most unusual elements of the constitution that needs to be revised and amended, to fit the standards of democracy.
Despite what many of his critics may tend to observe, Dahl is part of the many brilliant personalities who have openly come out to condemn the many loopholes in the U.S. Constitution. Dahl’s main agenda here is to encourage critique of both the American political institutions and the Constitutional system, in a manner that will call for significant amendments on the constitution, thus making it more democratic.
Dahl may not have had any big hopes that his claims will succeed in making significant democratic changes in the American Constitution in the immediate future, but his outright observations of the document’s shortcomings have always raised debate and discussions on the matter. This gives him the hope that maybe; with time, this may lead to something more beneficial to the future American generations.
One reason why I would agree with Dahl is the issue of the various questionable aspects presently surrounding the American Constitution, as far as democratic representation is concerned. Lieven observes that, “there is often the issue of unequal senate representation in the U.S. whereby some states continue to receive larger representation compared to others” (17). There is really no good reason as to why the Constitution should continue to permit such unequal representation.
Another questionable aspect of the Constitution is the system of the Electoral College, normally applied in the selection of American presidents. According to Levinson, “this system has serious democratic defects” and a good example here is the failure of the person receiving the majority of votes to become the holder of the highest office, in most cases, owing to some confusing elements of the constitution (353).
This system raises more questions than answers, especially to the voters who may never get to understand the real sense of democracy as expressed in the constitution. As a matter of fact, this deprives the American residents of their rights of citizenship and democracy.
These are some of the parts that need to be amended, so as to make the U.S. Constitution more acceptable as a democratic system of governance. Just as Dahl observes, the U.S. Constitution has been eluded by other recent developments observed in other democracies in the world.
As witnessed from this useful text, Dahl has succeeded at raising informed questions that every patriotic American citizen should be informed about, regarding the nature of the constitution. As a matter of fact, by pointing out some of the many imperfections in the U.S. Constitution and calling for the necessary reforms and amendments, Dahl has fully achieved his purpose on the book.
His overview on this crucial matter deserves universal recommendation, for it reminds the Americans of the need to revise their constitution and consider the chances for coming up with a more democratic society, which can only be achieved through a well-drafted constitution.
Dahl’s agenda here is not to condemn or to criticize the U.S. Constitution system, but to offer some light to some of the elements that make the system appear imperfect. By incorporating a number of provocative questions and assertions throughout the text, Dahl challenges all of us to utilize the opportunities we have, to help our country achieve the democratic systems befitting its outstanding status as a Superpower and a global economy leader.
Instead of wasting time criticizing Dahl’s indictment of the constitutional structure, it is time for the government to push for immediate reforms on the highlighted sectors and establish a governance system that guarantees the citizens all the rights, opportunities, and liberties which could be found in a more democratic society.
Works Cited
Levinson, Sanford. “Looking Abroad When Interpreting the US Constitution: Some Reflections.” Tex. Int’l LJ 39. 17 (2003): 353. Print.
Lieven, Anaton. America right or wrong: an anatomy of American nationalism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Print.
Robert, Dahl. How Democratic is the American Constitution? United Kingdom: Yale University Press, 2003. Print.
The chosen article talks about concluded Kenyan elections that Uhuru Kenyatta and his running mate William Ruto were declared winners. The presidential race was closely contested between Jubilee’s Uhuru Kenyatta and Cord’s Raila Odinga. However, the IEBC (Kenyan electoral body), announced Kenyatta the winner. Raila Odinga protested this decision and he is expected to challenge it in the Supreme Court citing electoral malpractices, especially concerning the tallying process.
The article brings out a number of political concepts including democracy, politics, influence, sovereignty, and power. Democracy refers to the political process that respects the rule of law whereby the opinion of each person counts. It refers to the form of government that allows all people to choose their leaders without any influence.
In this regard, democracy allows an individual to participate in elections by either voting for the preferred candidate or presenting his or her candidature for selection. In the article, the author notes that the new Kenyan constitution empowers people to participate in electing their leaders freely. At one point, the author notes that the former president interfered with the ideals of democracy during his reign by doing away with multiparty elections.
Politics is a concept that is described variously. Some scholars believe that politics is the authoritative allocation of resources. Others view it as an art and science of influencing people as regards to civil matters meaning that it is a relational concept. In the article, the author suggests that the former president is the winner in the recently concluded elections because his political students made it to power. This means that he is still politically relevant.
Politics is present in all levels of life including individual level, societal level, family level, and international level. Aristotle was of the view that man is both a political and a social animal meaning that politics is inherent in people. Through politics, an individual is able to influence others. Through politics, Uhuru Kenyatta and his running mate have acquired governmental power since they are the president-elect and deputy president-elect respectively.
An individual who has the ability to change other people’s views and perceptions is said to be influential politically. This means that influence is the act of convincing other people to support certain policies. However, for somebody to influence others, he or she must have adequate resources and technical knowledge.
For instance, the outgoing Kenyan premier, Raila Odinga, and the country’s deputy president-elect are said to be influential politically while the country’s president-elect, Uhuru Kenyatta, is influential economically since he is one of the richest individuals in the African continent.
Influence is related to other concepts such as politics and supremacy because an influential person would definitely excel politically. Sovereignty refers to the capability of the individual or the state to make decisions without external influence. In the article, the author notes that Uhuru Kenyatta and his running mate William Ruto were able to attain political power and authority by claiming that their opponents were puppets of the west.
This means that sovereignty is an important concept that influences politics. Since Kenya is a sovereign state, the west or any other actor in the international system should not interfere with internal decision-making processes. Power refers to the prestige and status that an individual enjoys owing to his or her position in society. Political power is achieved through elections in a democratic process.
O’Connor, Yanus and Sabato, in their book (Essential of American Government: Root and Reforms), described the concept of the ‘living constitution’ as a document that is flexible and has the ability to change. During the development of the constitution, there was need to consider the changing society over time.
Therefore, the constitution had to be made in such a way as to allow its evolution in order to accommodate the needs of the society. It is also argued that the constitution was written intentionally to be flexible and broad. This was in order to allow for technological and social changes that occur over time.
Thomas Jefferson argued that institutions and laws must not lag behind as changes occur in the human mind. He suggested that people become more enlightened and more developed. New discoveries are made and new ideas and truths unfolded. Therefore, there was need to accommodate these changes of circumstances in order to keep pace with them (Scalia and Gutmann 133). He explained how it was impossible for a grown man to fit into the coat that he once wore as a boy.
The constitution may be described as a living document in three ways. Firstly, it may be viewed as living due to the way in which formal amendment are made. It could also be said to be living based on the informal amendment process. The custom, tradition and usage of the constitution also make it a living document. The formal amendment process describes how changes are made to the document.
There are two ways in which an amendment may be proposed and two ways in which it may be ratified. These methods have been highlighted in Article V of the constitution (Goldford 150). This section has played an important role since it has allowed Congress to enact an amendment. Since a three-fourths majority of the votes is required for the amendment to be approved, it ensures that the Congress remains honest. This has also kept it constantly growing.
Informal amendments can also be made on the constitution in various ways. Congress may pass them as basic legislations. They can also result from court decisions or executive agreements. The Congress may pass legislations as it desires.
Executive agreements, which are contracts made between the head of state and head of foreign states, are used by the president when he needs to deal with foreign issues (Rehnquist 473). Court decision have for a long time been used to make constitutional changes in that they have led to the coming up of new laws.
The customs, traditions and the various ways in which the constitution was used in the past have greatly shaped the activities today. An example of a custom that has dictated how certain things are done today is the delivering of the State of Union Address annually. It is usually done at almost the same time every year.
However, there is nowhere in the constitution where the individual responsible should do it at a particular time and in the presence of the press. However, it has traditionally been done that way and it has become a custom. Changes have also arisen from the use of certain portions of the legislation. A good example is the War Powers Resolution of 1973. It has never been formally enforced. Only parts of it have been used occasionally. Not a single president has stood completely by the resolution’s provisions.
Another application of the living constitution may be in the reference made by the Supreme Court (James 49). In the eighth amendment, it talks of ‘evolving standards of decency’. It defines the constitution in broad terms. Therefore, it states that the court shall interpret the situation with the current societal conditions in mind. It recognizes that the society is constantly changing and so are the standards of decency.
Constitutional Amendments
O’Connor, Yanus and Sabato also discussed the several amendments to the U.S. constitution (350). Some of these amendments were not passed due to one reason or the other. One the amendments proposed to the U.S. Constitution was the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). This amendment was proposed with the promise of guaranteeing equal rights for the women (Nicholson 254). It was meant to take effect two years after its ratification.
It was originally composed by Alice Paul and was brought to the Congress. Several decades after it was first introduced to the Congress, it passed both houses of Congress (Moore 78). It was then taken for ratification in the state legislatures. However, it failed to get the required number of ratifications before the deadline. In addition to this, conservatives opposed the Equal Rights Amendment (Mansbridge 79). Therefore, it failed to be adopted.
I would support this amendment since I believe in gender equality. I believe that men and women should be treated equally unless there is a sound biological reason to warrant different treatment. The government should provide equality in law and ensure that there is equality when it comes to social situations. Both men and women should have equal democratic rights.
In terms of employment, both should also be paid equally for equal work and have the same opportunities when it comes to growth (training) and promotions. Women should also be allowed to pursue careers and get into positions that have always been occupied by the men. In many countries, women have been allowed to serve in the army. Some work in the police force and fire departments. Women should also have equal opportunities when it comes to the occupation of political positions or top management positions in organizations.
Gender equality should be observed in all aspects including the home setting. For example, activities such as cleaning, childcare and nursing should not be considered as exclusively the women’s. Men are equal to the task and should take responsibility. The Equal Rights Amendment should have been passed in order to ensure equality of both men and women.
The Every Vote Counts Amendment was another proposed amendment in the U.S. It was meant to change the way in which the president and the vice president are put into power. It provided for the popular election of the two individuals (Bugh 32). Therefore, this would mean that an electoral system is used in place of the Electoral College (Edwards 122).
The two positions would be filled by the individuals who gunner the most votes from the citizens. Citizens from the different states and the district would elect a leader of their choice. The Electoral College have for a long time elected the president and vice president of the United States.
I favour the passing of this amendment because the process in which the president and vice president are put in power is credible and appropriate. The choice of the leaders of a particular country should be made by the individuals to be led. This means that the citizens are the ones to select their own leaders.
The Electoral College is made up of few individuals who may not necessarily represent the desires of the entire population. Therefore, all the citizens should be given the opportunity to vote in the leaders of their choice. This way, they would be responsible for the kind of leadership that the elected persons exercise. Voting should be regarded as the right of every individual.
Federalism
The American government was initially thought to be run under the system of federalism (Kelly, Harbison, and Belz 321). This is a term that was derived from the Federalists. It expressed the idea that the governmental power was divided between different units. These included the central government (national authority) and the states. There are several forms of federalism described by O’Connor and her colleagues. Some of them include cooperative federalism, fiscal federalism, dual federalism, new federalism and creative federalism.
Dual federalism
This is the theory of shared power in the U.S. government. The federal constitutional law assumes that power is divided into two different spheres. One of the spheres of power is in the possession of the federal government. The other belongs to each of the states.
Both spheres are equally powerful and are limiting to the other. In this case, the provisions of the constitution are interpreted and applied differently in such a way as to give authority to the governments within the particular sphere (O’Connor, Yanus and Sabato 247). However, it also works in such a way as to limit its power over the other.
Fiscal Federalism
This involves the division of the functions of the public sector and funds among the various parts of the government. There is an emphasis on the need for improved performance of the public sector.
Proper alignment of the fiscal instruments is also required. A focus and the maximization of welfare are important to the optimization of jurisdictional authority. However, economic considerations only cannot be enough to ensure optimal jurisdictional authority. Political considerations must also be considered since it helps shape the fiscal relations between governments in most of the federations.
Creative Federalism
This form of federalism was popular during the 1960s. One of its characteristics was that the federal government was responsible for the determination of the states’ needs (Lowi 147). During this period, the federal government served the state directly and provided its needs, which included social services. There was need for liaison between federal government and the state government in order to plan how to achieve the set objectives.
Cooperative Federalism
This form of federalism assumes that the state and federal governments have equal power. The local, state and national governments work together to solve common issues (Hills 907).
New Federalism
This was created in order to ensure devolution of power. This form was deemed necessary after the state governments lost power. Loss of power was associated with the enforcement of civil rights in U.S. and President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal (Zavodnyik 166).
There was a push and pull between the states and the federal government and this prompted for some change in policies. It led to the transfer of power back to the local and state governments. It involved the provision of block grants by the federal government. Revenue sharing was also returned to the lesser governments.
Civil Rights and Liberties
O’Connor, Yanus and Sabato mentioned the rights and liberties enjoyed by every American. However, some have been jeopardized today. One of the rights of the American people that have been jeopardized recently is the rights to privacy (communications privacy). This may be seen in the way the private communications of innocent citizens are intercepted by law enforcement agents. The USA Patriot Act, in particular has led to such violations.
The act came about in response to the September 11th terrorist attacks. This act reduced the restrictions placed on agencies as they gathered intelligence within the United States. It also allowed for the deporting and detaining of immigrants who were thought to have terrorist intent. Therefore, there was an enhanced domestic security against terrorism. This led to the enhancement of surveillance procedures by the particular bodies. Surveillance and wiretapping were extensively used and at some point caused conflict.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center, for example, opposed the surveillance of packet switched networks. This is because the content in the address information would be exposed. There was also expansion in search warrants as the FBI could access voicemails. Only a search warrant was required in order for one to get access. The agents could also perform a ‘sneak and peek’ search. This was to be done without prior notice. This notice also prevented anyone from resisting any search even if it was wrongfully done.
These practices threatened the citizen’s individual liberties since they thought it was ironic that their freedom was shacked and yet the main terrorists (such as Osama) walked freely. I chose to discuss this issue because it is controversial. From the book by O’Connor, Yanus and Sabato, I have learnt that the efforts of the government to safeguard the United States from terrorism have come with a cost and the citizens are the ones to pay. Going through people’s voicemails and emails infringes the right to privacy and this should not be the case.
Another right that has been in jeopardy is the freedom of speech. The Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act (DISCLOSE) was opposed by several parties since it jeopardised the citizen’s rights and liberties (Kiang and Murray 41).
This bill was introduced in order to prohibit foreign corporations from influencing the election results through campaigns (Kolodny 154). This meant that the corporations were not allowed to make political contributions or provide access to certain information (financial) to its members or the public.
This, in a way, restricts some institutions from exercising their rights (free speech). Just as the American citizens were starting to express their rights to free speech, the democrats geared up for a vote on the new bill that would undermine the First Amendment. With the amendment of the bill, the playing field would not be levelled since the opposition would have been literally silenced. The funny thing is that the amendments were to be made only five months to the elections.
This bill was opposed and criticised by the American Civil Liberties Union. This was due to its ability to cause unnecessary damage to the freedom of speech rights (Warburton 176). In addition to this, it did not consider protecting the privacy of the citizens. One of the negative impacts that would have been caused by this is the lack of donor anonymity.
Some opposed it arguing that it would violate the principle of fairness and equality. I chose to discuss this case since freedom of speech should be enjoyed by every citizen in the United States of America. From what I have learnt from the course, I can rightfully say that laws that act in such a way as to prevent free speech should not be passed.
Works Cited
Bugh, Gary. Representation in Congressional efforts to amend the presidential election system. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishers, 2010. Print.
Edwards, George. Why the electoral college is bad for America (second edition). New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2011. Print.
Goldford, Dennis. The American constitution and the debate over originalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Print.
Hills, Roderick. “The political economy of cooperative federalism: Why state autonomy makes sense and dual sovereignty doesn’t.” Michigan Law Review 64.4 (1998): 813-944. Print.
James, Leanoard. The Supreme Court in American Life. Chicago: Scott Foreman, 1964. Print.
Kelly, Alfred, Winfred Harbison, and Herman Belz. The American constitution: Its origins and development (7th ed.). New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1991. Print.
Kiang, Mathias, and Andrew Murray. Human rights in the digital age. New York: Routledge, 2005. Print.
Kolodny, Robin. The Several elections of 1824 – Congress & the Presidency. Washington, D.C.: American University, 1996. Print.
Lowi, Teri. The end of the republican Era. Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 2006. Print.
Mansbridge, Jane. Why we lost the ERA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986. Print.
Moore, John. Congressional Quarterly’s guide to U.S. Elections. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly. Inc., 1985. Print.
Nicholson, Zoe. The hungry heart – A woman’s fast for justice. Newport Beach: Lune Soleil Press, 2004. Print.
O’Connor, Karen, Alixandra Yanus, and Larry Sabato. Essential of American Government: Root and Reforms, 2011 Edition (10th ed.). New York: Longman, 2011. Print.
Rehnquist, William. “The notion of a living constitution.” Texas Law Review 693.54 (1976): 344-511. Print.
Scalia, Antonin, and Amy Gutmann. A matter of interpretation: Federal courts and the law. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998. Print.
Warburton, Nigel. Free speech: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.
Zavodnyik, Peter. The rise of the federal colossus: The growth of federal power from Lincoln to F.D.R. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2011. Print.
The constitution of the US is the absolute law of the nation, which acts as a guide to the political culture of the Americans and the law. They are many issues that have been addressed in the constitution of the US, some have been amended a number of times to fit the needs of the society.
Abortion is a good example of an issue that has been addressed in the constitution; it has also been amended a number of times. Under the constitution, the president has a number of privileges, which will be discussed in this paper. The constitution plays a significant role of creating a balance on most pressing issues and making sure that America remains a democratic state.
President’s enumerated powers. In the US, the president has special powers, which have been formalized. The authorities of any president of the US are carefully limited and have been well outlined in the constitution of the US. The president has the power to appoint executives, federal juries, and American ambassadors among other officers of the government.
This power is also referred as the enumerated power of a president. Using the enumerated powers, the president of the US can negotiate treaties with other governments and can even recognize ambassadors from other countries. He or she can also veto bills that are passed in the assembly. As such, the enumerated powers are special authorities, which are exercised by a sitting president and are well-outlined in the constitution.
Special powers available to the president: The American president has several powers: these powers include those that are granted by the constitution, by the Acts of Congress, and other soft powers given to the President as the leader of the nation.
Emergency powers. Emergency powers are categorized into two groups. The two groups of powers are (a) a special power to act during the time of crisis, which is fully based on the president’s decision and (b) the special power to act according to the constitution or formal laws when an emergency has been announced in the nation.
Executive powers. In the executive branch, the president has been allowed by the constitution to manage a wide range of national affairs. Therefore, the president issues rules and instructions, which have a certain force although they never require approval by the congress. An excellent example of executive powers of a president in the US is using the veto on a certain bill that the he (president) does not approve.
Inherent powers. In the constitution, there are certain statements that can allow the president to have power. A statement like ….the executive power shall be vested in a president…. allows a national leader to practice some form of authority. Regulating immigration, acquiring a territory, and ordering deportation of some individuals are examples of inherent powers by the US president.
Is exercise of these powers a positive or negative influence? The president of the US exercises enumerated powers for the good of the citizens and the nation at large. During an emergency, for instance, there is a need to make quick decisions in order to address the situation. However, the congress can take long to make, and implement such decisions and it is, therefore, a positive aspect that the president should make decisions during such critical moments.
Does the president have too much power? In the recent times, the citizens of the US (some of them) feel that the president has become too powerful. Some people argue that the president has so much power that the democratic system is under threat. However, this is not entirely true.
The powers of any American president are set by the constitution and, therefore, the president cannot exercise his powers outside what has been allowed by the constitution. The constitution also prevents the president from using his privileges wrongly. This means that the president cannot breach the rights of the constitution and those of the American citizens. The president does not have too much power.
Differences between judicial activism and judicial restraint: The judicial activism and judicial restraints are antagonistic; the two terms are quite different from each other (. They are both relevant in the US as they relate to the American judicial system. These two are very significant in checking and controlling the powers of the government; they help check fraudulence.
The term judicial activism refers to how the constitution is interpreted in order to campaign for certain values and conditions in a nation. On the other hand, the term judicial restraint refers to the act of limiting the powers of federal judges so that they cannot strike down certain laws in national affairs. In issues of judicial activism, the federal juries are supposed to utilize their powers to correct injustices in the social system only when the other constitutional bodies are in-active.
Therefore, the judicial activism plays a significant role in creating and developing social policies on matters of political injustice, civil liberties and public morality. On the other hand, in the judicial restraint, the court allows the congress and state legislatures to continue with their duties, but can hold them back if they are violating the laws and constitution of the US.
The judicial restraint and judicial activism are also different in that they have different objectives. The judicial restraint creates a balance in the judicial, executive, and legislative issues while the judicial activism give powers to all arms of the government to overrule certain acts in the constitution.
Weakness and strengths of judicial activism. Some of the key benefits of judicial activism are: (a) to promote democracy by following what is only outlined in the constitution, (b) the judicial activism allows judges to stand firm on certain decisions because the constitution obligates them to do so, and lastly, (c) the judicial activism allows courts to supervise and implement laws, which is part of the democracy. The weakness of the activism is that its reliability is questionable and, therefore, it should be analyzed.
Weakness and strengths of judicial restraints. One of the benefits of judicial restraints is that it allows judges to exercise their authority; this is a form of democracy. This particular right allows the juries to defend the constitution as much as possible. It also allows federal judges to decline to make a ruling on some of the controversial matters. This, however, is usually considered a violation of the constitution, which is a major weakness of the judicial restraint.
The preferred method. The preferred method is judicial activism because it promotes democracy and allows the judges to make and implement decisions as well as standing firm on their rulings.
History of abortion law and its current status in America. Abortion is very common in the society, and it is estimated that almost half the population of American women have at one time terminated a pregnancy voluntarily. History about abortion reveals that during the 1800s, abortion was legal in the US, but towards the end of the 19th century, the abortion act was amended and abortion was criminalized by the constitution.
The constitution banned all forms abortions after the fourth month of pregnancy. Regardless, the number of illegal abortions was relatively high but when the Comstock law was implemented, the number of illegal abortions declined at an alarming rate. During this period, some feminists (including Susan Antony) were strongly against abortion and their work helped in the war against abortion.
In the year 1965, the US banned all forms of abortion but this ban varied from one to state to another. Even though, abortion was only allowed under specific conditions which include (a) to save the mother’s life, (b) in case the pregnancy was as a result of rape, (c) if the fetus had some complications or abnormalities like deformity.
In the year 1973, the Supreme Court said that all the laws on abortion were unconstitutional and it, therefore, allowed abortion within the first three months. Some celebrated this ruling while others including the Catholic Church opposed it. This led to wars and bombing of clinics that exercised abortion. Today, the conflict about abortion revolves around over termination of fetus at the late stages of pregnancy. Supporters argue that such an abortion is good because it saves the mother’s life.
On the other hand, opponents argue that in a majority of the abortions, the fetus can be saved and people only abort as an excuse that the health of the mother is at risk. Presently, abortion is legal in more than fifty states in the US. The issue of mother’s health, which allows the mother to abort even at the late stages of a pregnancy, is a broad one, and it does not have a single answer. As a result, there is no particular reason why a mother cannot abort.
Do you agree with the present status of abortion law? The issue of abortion has brought controversy in the US today. Abortion has become a critical issue in the society with many abortions been done every day. I feel that some people abort voluntarily although they argue that the health of the mother is at risk. This continues to victimize innocent and vulnerable fetus, and the law does not protect them. Therefore, there is a need define and to develop new laws regarding abortion. I do not agree with the current law on abortion.
Conclusion
The president of the US has some form of special powers, which allow him to make important decisions during critical moments. The special powers of a president are granted by the constitution, by the Acts of Congress, and other soft powers. Such decisions are applicable during times of emergency.
The term judicial activism refers to how the constitution is interpreted in order to advocate for certain values and conditions (in the US) while judicial restraint refers to the act of limiting the power of federal judges so that they cannot strike down certain laws, which are outlined by the constitution. The major benefit of these two is that they promote democracy in the US.
The issue of abortion has been (and still is) a burning issue in the society today. Presently, in more than fifty states abortion is allowed by the constitution. There is a need to develop laws regarding abortion to avoid the controversy surrounding this topic.
The foundations in American government were discussed in the first week by giving a critical look at the meaning and content of political science. In terms of definition, political science is the study of governance systems in society. It is a division of knowledge that explores ideologies and structures used by governing structures across the world.
The American constitution is also a critical component of American government.[1] The constitution is used as the supreme law of the land since all other statutes operate below it. The same constitution has undergone several amendments especially through federalism. In order to support this reading, we also watched the video entitled “ethos”. This video media largely focuses on various aspects of governance that hinder the full implementation of democratic ideals.
In addition, the video attempts to give a clear picture of how our individual liberties as well as the environment can also be negatively affected by factors that work against democracy.[2] From the readings, it is evident that the corporate power lacks regulation while the country’s politics has suffered conflicts of interests. This essay underscores the distorted democratic ideals that have culminated into warfare and over-consumption.
During week two, we explored federalism which captured chapters 3 to 5.[3] Under this theme, we discussed the systematic development of American constitution, the federalist no.10 on faction and also the “centinel” no. 10 on responsibility. From the chronology section, we noted that the adoption of the articles of confederation took place way back on 1st March 1781.
This was followed by the Annapolis convention five years later.[4] A lot of other amendments have taken place in this constitutional document until the present date. The Federalist no.10 focused on the protection against the local faction and insurrection for the residents of New York State.[5] Finally, the centinel was a 1787 document that was directed towards “the Freemen of Pennsylvania”.[6]
It is evident that in spite of the myriads of changes that have taken place in the US constitution, the current state of democracy is still wanting and as such, the political system still demands urgent reformation.[7] This assertion has been supported by the evidence presented in the video.
For example, there are still powerful political elites who have extremely distorted corporate leadership for the sake of their own interests.[8] Secondly, when the chronology of the US constitution is keenly followed, it is found out that the more changes are made on the document, the more the constitution remains the same.
For instance, under the Federalist #51, Massachusetts carried out a ratification of its constitution while amendments were proposed on the same document after one day. This was a common occurrence across other states such as Maryland, Connecticut and Georgia. This implies that in spite of the constitutional changes that have been undertaken up todate, the positive impacts are yet to be fully realized.[9]
Conclusion
In summing up, the “centinel” was against all the federalist ideals that had been put forward by the US constitution. The “centinel” noted that “from this investigation into the organization of this government, it appears that it is devoid of all responsibility or accountability to the great body of the people…”[10]
This implies that most of the gains that had been made towards constitutional development were brought down by several opposition fronts. Moreover, the American constitution and various phases of federalism have remained clear proofs that the foundations of American democracy have been influenced by several other factors
Miller, Lisa. “The Invisible Black Victim: How American Federalism Perpetuates Racial Inequality in Criminal Justice Miller Invisible Black Victim.” Law & Society Review 44, no. 3 (2010): 805-842.
Prochaska, Frank. “The View from Albion: Bagehot and the American Constitution.” History Today 60, no. 2 (2010): 35-41.
Frank Prochaska, “The View from Albion: Bagehot and the American Constitution,” History Today 60, no. 2 (2010): 39.
“Ethos”
Lisa Miller, “The Invisible Black Victim: How American Federalism Perpetuates Racial Inequality in Criminal Justice Miller Invisible Black Victim,” Law & Society Review 44, no. 3/4 (2010): 834.
The Framers held the belief that the human nature was dictated by self-interests and inequalities such as wealth distribution were part of the main causes of political conflicts. Protecting private property was also believed to be a key concern of the government.
To avoid potential risks posed by these factions that would threaten the existence of the new republic, the Framers had to come up with a constitutional framework that would ensure that the effects of these inequalities did not exert their control over the government. James Madison and others created a government model that dealt with the threat of tyranny of the Majority (Birkland 23).
The framers are acknowledged for the contribution they made in making of the United States constitution. In 1788, Madison wrote in the federalist papers a defense of his pluralist model, which up to date forms a crucial commentary of the United Sates Constitution. The intentions of the Framers can be traced from the current United States constitution by carefully considering the constitutional components that reflect them.
These intentions include the successful distribution of powers between the three arms of the government, which are the judiciary, the executive and the legislature, establishing a system of checks and balances and limiting the control that majority factions have over the government.
An evaluation of Components of the American Constitution
The electoral process
Madison feared that the majority groups would overrule the minority group and have control of the government, which would then be reduced to a mechanism of nursing their egos and interests. This resulted to his ideas of pluralism, which counteracted the threat posed by factionalism. The United States electoral process, as dictated by the current constitution, reflects the intention that Madison and the others had.
The system controls the extent to which the people have control of the composition of the government (Cochran and Malone 23). This curbs the threat of majority groups taking advantage of the voting process to eliminate the representation of the other groups in the government.
Pluralism in this case assists in ensuring that there is peaceful coexistence in the nation by ensuring that the different groups are equally represented in the government. For instance, the president of the United States who happens to be the most powerful person in the government is not directly elected by the people.
The fifty states of the US and the District of Columbia take part in elections to elect people who form the Electoral College, which is in turn given the mandate to elect the president of the United States. Each of the states votes for the same number in both the senate and the representatives elections.
For instance, the state of California gets fifty-seven votes for the Electoral College while the District of Columbia gets three. This model ensures that all groups are fully represented in the process and that no singular group can claim dominance.
The citizens of the United States can only directly vote for the members of the House of Representatives. This ensures that the voters at the lowest level feel that they own the process. While this model gives power to the voter to decide on who should represent their interests in the government, it ensures that this power is not abused by limiting the control that people have in the end process (Birkland 67).
The voters were also charged with the responsibility of electing state legislatures, who consequently elected the senators before the amendment that ensured that Senators are elected by popular majority. This gave the people more power and control in the most fundamental levels, in the government.
The fact that the citizen’s control in the voting process is limited or indirect reflects the arguments that Madison voiced in the Federal paper no.10, which claimed that the public voice pronounced by the representatives of the people is more consonant than when it is pronounced by the people themselves.
Pluralism in this case was aimed at making the decision making process, as well as the legislation, effective as it is only the opinions of representatives that are considered in the process. The case would have been more difficult in a case whereby it is the opinions of all the people that matter in the decision making process.
In fact, it would take ages before reaching a consensus (Cochran and Malone 90). The Framers, for this reason, were opposed to direct democracy and instead opted for a republic, which is a system of ruling people under their consent but through representatives.
Checks and balances
The checks and balances that were proposed by the Framers are still in existence, in the American constitution. These checks and balances were intended to ensure that, a given institution does not over exercise the powers it has and bend them to serve personal interests of a given individual or a given group of people. One of the proofs of these checks and balances exist between the senate and the office of the President.
The president appoints members of the Supreme Court a decision, which requires the approval of two thirds of the senate. This ensures that the president does not abuse the powers accorded to the office and interfere with the common good as stipulated in the pluralist model (Cochran and Malone 44). On the other hand, bills that are passed by the senate can only become laws the president vetoes them.
This system of checks and balances is essential in that it deals with vices such as political corruption that the Framers intended to curb in the new republic. They are critical aspects that reflect the pluralist ideologies of the common good and equal representation.
Separation of powers
Madison’s proposal to separate the powers of the institutions, which form the federal government, is still depicted in the American constitution today. This doctrine ensures the separation of the powers of the federal government into three. These are; the judiciary, legislature and the executive. By ensuring this distinction, power is equally distributed to the three ensuring that not a single group had control over the other.
While the three groups consider themselves equal in the making of central government decisions, the threat of one group overruling the others or failing to make consultations is effectively dealt with (Cochran and Malone 34). Each segment acts as a watchdog to the other and ensures that it is the common good of the represented groups that inform the decision making process.
This is clear evidence of Madison’s goal of setting power against power. For instance, legislative decisions can be challenged by the judiciary and declared as unconstitutional if they are considered and proved so.
American political system and policymaking process
Political scientists and scholars who specialize in studying the upper echelons of leadership in America, as well as the structure and composition of the government in most cases, end up with conflicting arguments about the findings. This is majorly dependent upon the perspective from which they look at the leadership.
The ‘top offices’ encompass the position s that bear most of the authority to run and manage the activities of considerable political, economic, educational, civic, and other powerful institutions. Some political scientists such as Lindbloom and Woodhouse argue that, it is the occupants of these offices who have control over half of the entire nation’s assets (123).
Due to this finding, they conclude that the American political system and the policy making process are representative of the Elite model rather than the pluralist model that was intended by the Framers.
Evidence
Lindbloom and Woodhouse hold the claim that, single elite, rather than a multiplicity of competing groups, has taken over the decision to influence policy decisions that are of enormous importance to the entire lot of American citizens (47). Only minority groups of less than two hundred and fifty people hold the most influential seats in the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.
It is, therefore, obvious to make the conclusion that this conflicts with the intentions of the framers since they made it clear that human nature was dictated by self- interests.
To most proponents of the government system in existence, such critiques base their claims on interpretations on government and politics that are different from those of the pluralists. Rather than having the pluralist picture of hundreds of competing groups shaping out policy, the elite model portrays a pyramid-like structure of power.
The decisions that the elite group make, therefore, cannot be termed as reflecting the interests of the people they are representing but those that they bear. To this extend, Lindbloom posits that “the pernicious effects of political inequality on the policy making process and, “especially the possibility that policy ideas are systematically misshaped by pro-business cultures of market-orientated democracies” (45).
By this argument, Lindbloom contests the universally held pluralist claim that Democracies such as America install leaders whose voice is the same of that of the people they are representing. The elite groups are merely led by their business interests in the making of the policies.
The facts that the holders of these top offices belong to that a given class of elites and that they control the larger proportion of the nation’s assets, is enough evidence that the other groups, which are comprised of the people who voted for them either directly or in directly, are not represented. Only policies that favor the elites economically, socially or otherwise are passed.
The power elite
Some power-elite theorists claim that the governing elite in the US gets its members from three defined areas namely: the leading political offices which include the president, a number of cabinet members and some advisers, owners and director of leading corporate and highly ranked military officers (Lindblom and Woodhouse 116).
The manner in which this elite group operates is different from a dictatorship in that, they do not force their self-interests through terror or even the use of a secret police force. They are characterized as being respecters of civil liberties and being keen followers of constitutional principles.
The role of the elite in policymaking
The importance of these elites in the policy making process is equated to the trunk of a tree and the interests of the other groups as the twigs of the same tree. The tree is less affected when the twigs are interfered with, but when the trunk is interfered with, the tree might weather.
It is in this case arguable that whoever makes the trunk decisions is responsible or is acclaimed for setting the agenda for the subsequent debates about other lesser decisions (Lindblom and Woodhouse 150). In order to protect their interests and their assets, the policies and other decisions that these elites make are skewed to their advantage regardless of the effects they might have on the citizens.
The lower levels of the government, which are composed of the Congress, the courts and the states, are only given the responsibilities of implementing these policies (Lindblom and Woodhouse 112). The Congress, for instance, which is composed of members who are elected by the people, is deprived of the opportunity to represent the issues and opinions of the people in the policy making process.
According to the elitists, contemporary democracies, which have systems of government such as the USA, lack the ability to probe social problems as policies are skewed to the advantage of the elite groups.
Evidence in other readings
Elite groups have been accused of influencing the direction in which the policymaking process takes. These include the two ‘group’ of policy making namely: the iron triangle and the power clusters. The Iron Triangle was noted by public policy observers as being responsible of influencing the agricultural policy in the United States (Birkland 47). The three points of power in this elitism are 1).
The executive, which comprises of the secretary of agriculture, administrators of the USDA agencies as well as the director of the budget, 2). The congress, which included the chairpersons of the congressional agriculture and, 3.)The Farm Lobby, which included a few leaders of the farm organizations.
The key power points of this model have complete say in the creation and implementation of agricultural policies. The issues that were mostly handled were those that concerned the parties involved.
The power clusters were noted more recently with the term web of power being used to refer to the active players in the public policy making process.
Power clusters because of elitists’ notions play influence the policymaking in almost every arm of the American government (Birkland 45). The top most power cluster is composed of the most influential people in the government who disguise self –centered policies as in the overall good of the Americans.
Conclusion
The policy making process must be based on a given framework. This means that there must be people who are representatives of the citizens who have been charged with the obligations of creating or implementing the policies. It is, therefore, not strange to notice that some people may take advantage of this to drive their personal agendas at the expense of the people they represent (Birkland 56).
This, however, does not mean that the entire process is influenced by the self-interests of these people since the interests are not in any way similar. It is in democracies that employ such systems, such as the United States government that are able to probe social problems effectively and successfully create and implement policies, which represent the interests of the people.
Works Cited
Birkland, Thomas. An Introduction to Policy Process, Theories, Concepts, Models of Public Policy. 2nd Ed. UK: Alibris, 2005. Print.
Cochran, Charles, and Eloise Malone. Public Policy: Perspectives and Choices. 4th Ed. New York: Lynne Reinner Publishers, 2005. Print.
Lindblom, Charles, and Edward Woodhouse. The Policy Making Process. 3rd Ed. New York: Prentice Hall, 2007. Print.
The president is the supreme power in nearly all the countries across the world. Only a few countries like Swaziland and the United Kingdom among others vest their supreme powers in kings/queens. The constitution of the United States of America confers diplomatic, executive, and administrative powers among others to the president.
IN my opinion, although the constitution of the United States bestows sovereign roles in the president, he/she must not rule within the constitution only; however, he should be monitored by the Senate, Congress, citizens, civil society, and other humanitarian groups. Therefore, the presidential powers are not powerful because of the establishment of the systems to check and indirectly control the president’s official duties.
My opinion in presidential powers is that although the constitution bestows the pivotal state duties in him, s/he cannot execute the duties without consent from the senate/congress house, therefore, limiting his powers. The senate has the powers to decline or give consent to presidential appointees through ballot boxes, and only a minimum of two-thirds votes will give the president the go ahead to implement his powers.
The establishment of the senate, congress, electoral system, and limitation of the presidential term to four years is some of the systems that control presidential powers. Furthermore, incase the president commits crimes or does not rule amicably, the house of representatives is free to charge him thus stripping him off the honor as the president. Therefore, the ability of the power checking systems, working parallel with the president, renders him/her powerless.
Article II of the constitution of the United States of American confers the president with four main executive official duties (Phelps & Lehman, 2005, p.112). The first role is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
The president of the United States of America has the power to declare war against any nation; he executes foreign policy leads the military and is free to call on military support anytime the need arises to ensure there is safety in his country (Lowi, 1985, p.20). On the contrary, the president has to work hand in hand with the congress in matters concerning foreign policy.
The second duty is the principal powers to execute all laws and bills passed by Congress. Nevertheless, the congress has the powers to resist or vote against the presidential decision during the signing of the bills/laws. Before the publication of any law, the president must approve it. The constitution grants the president immunity to implement the laws devoid of facing criminal charges or civil suit.
Thirdly, the president plays the role of the chief or principal diplomat. The constitution allows him to appoint all the ambassadors, sign treaties, or agreements with other nations and interact with other presidents and leaders. Apart from executive agreements, all the other international agreements have to seek approval from the senate, which may vote either for or against before declaring the treaty valid.
The executive agreements may occur secretly without the consent of the senate. Finally, the president plays the role of the chief principal administrator in all state duties. He has the powers to appoint the judges of the Supreme Court, ambassadors, and members of the executive branch. Similarly, the president has to work with senate to implement the aforementioned role.
In addition, the constitution allows the president to pardon criminals serving a jail term always referred to as presidential pardon. Unfortunately, the ability to pardon state offenders renders the judicial and the senate powerless because they do not interfere with it. Thus, the president is unable to implement the executive duties, which the constitution bestowed in him without consulting the senate/congress.
The constitution of the United States of America has established presidential checking systems, which monitors and approves presidential powers. The Electoral College, the limited presidential term, the impeachment law and the presence of the senate/congress closely work with the president (Phelps & Lehman, 2005, p.113).
Although, the role of the systems is to hinder the president from turning into a dictator, the presidential lacks federal powers. Indirectly, through democracy the citizens elect their representatives who subsequently elect the president.
In addition, the limitation of the presidential term to four years also ensures citizens practice their democratic rights while the impeachment law checks the personality and moral conduct of the president. Finally, the presence of senate/congress/house of representatives monitors the presidential powers, which has led to a tussle between the two branches especially concerning the implementation of foreign policy in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2001 (Krent, 2005, p.70).
Although the president is the chief army officer, the senate/house of representative, give orders to the military officers leading to a tussle in the two branches. The aforementioned systems and checks/separation of powers have failed in balancing the federal government of the United States of America.
For instance, the ability of the presidential to pardon state offenders (amnesty) seems to be offensive to the judiciary, which both the president and the senate appoint. The accountability to the senate is the main section in the constitution that has led to disagreements between the two groups.
In summary, the constitution of the US offers the president supreme powers, but the senate, either approves or monitors all his/her duties closely. Thus, the presence of the system and checks section in the law limits presidential principal roles rendering him
References
Krent, H. K. (2005). Presidential Powers. New York, NY: NYU Press.
Lowi, T. (1985). The Personal President. Ithaca: Cornell University Press
Phelps, S., & Lehman, J. (2005). “Constitution of the United States”. West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, 8, 110-115.
The American constitution is supreme to other laws in the country; with this notion, public administration must follow the demand of the constitution. The constitution should be the overall law that governs issues and management of public institutions; in some instances, the constitution may have some bureaucracy that hinders efficiency among public administrators however it is normative that the administrators understand the requirements of the law and follow them.
In some cases, the constitution is seen to offer some stuck guidelines that are only needed to be followed for the general good of the law. Some scholars have argued that some of the demand made under the constitution lead to designs of inefficiency among public institutions.
Among public administration causes, there have been debates and recommendations that the rule of law should be taught; this is to facilitate knowledge among them and ensure when they are taking the oath of office, they understand what they are committing themselves to. In general the oath mandates them to uphold the rule of law and act ethically for the general good of the entire society (Rorh, 1982).
Ethics and Comparative Administration
Public servants of U.S. bureaucracy system are expected to uphold high degrees of ethics when working and performing their tasks; the general belief is that the constitution has some frameworks that can be used as the pillars of ethical code of conducts. The constitution should protect moral aspects of human being respecting ones fundamental rights and freedom.
According to the article, democracy has an effect on bureaucratic ethics, there is need to have freedom of choice and expression. Although the bureaucratic ethics notion, the system of operation that administrators should adopt should respect the rule of law and ensure that they perform their duties diligently, professionally, with the heart and the interests of the larger majority in their heart.
I agree with the argument that democratic governance is the foundation of bureaucratic ethics; this is so because when the ruling class adopts effective systems of governance, the policies they make will be ethical and for the general good of the society.
For example, the police are expected to ensure justice prevails in the society; they should have effective systems of administration. For instance, when a crime has been committed that calls for the use of public funds, police should not use the amounts selectively, they should have the same policy.
According to my belief, the society can attain high levels of bureaucratic ethics however there is need to have a central body that controls the flow and direction that behavior among administration officials follow. In the case that there is conflict of issues, the administrating central body should prevail. In a nation’s administration, democracy backed with the constitution stands a better chance to maintain bureaucratic ethics (Rorh, 2007).
Conclusion
In the administration of social policy, public officials should uphold professionalism, integrity, and ethical behavior. For uniformity, governments need to enact policies that reinforce the rule of law and administration of justice; the constitution is supreme thus it should have guidelines to governance frameworks that support ethical behavior among citizens.
Constitution as a course in tertiary education should not be limited to administrators but should be a common course in all professions; this will facilitate administration of justice and respect of fundamental rights freedoms.
References
Rorh, J. (1982). The Constitution in Public Administration: A Report on Education. American Review of Public Administration, 16(4), 429-440.
Rorh, J. (2007). Ethics and Comparative Administration: A Constitutional Commentary. American Review of Public Administration, 10(1), 65-74.